Monday, April 12, 2010

Well, well, well, Eli discovers that the EPA reads everything, including Rabett Run. We are honored. From the US EPA responses to challenges to its Endangerment Finding for increasing CO2 concentrations

Comment (3-45):A number of commenters believe that anthropogenic global warming is impossible, many citing arguments made by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009). Several commenters (e.g., 0430) note that the greenhouse effect is not like a real greenhouse. Several claim that it is thermodynamically impossible because heat cannot be transferred from a cool substance to a warmer substance (0430, 2210.5): for example, blankets cannot make you warmer than body temperature (1707, 0183.1,). Another thermodynamic argument for the impossibility of the greenhouse effect was proposed by two commenters (2210.3, 4509) citing Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) who states that the greenhouse effect as commonly formulated violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Another commenter (0711.1) requests evidence of any peer reviewed climate change paper that does not rely on computer simulation. Another theory (2887.1) holds that long-wave radiation will cause increased evaporation of the surface ocean, negating any heat increase. One commenter (0535) submitted a non-peer reviewed paper providing a different explanation for the net energy budget of the Earth, with no role for warming by CO2.

Response (3-45):

The evidence for the atmospheric greenhouse effect is well supported by the scientific literature.

The objections raised by a number of commenters to the basic thermodynamics are without grounds. We are well aware that the greenhouse effect is not at all like a real greenhouse. However, the analogy of a blanket is a little bit better: and indeed, sufficiently insulating blankets can cause overheating. GHGs (blankets) will, by reducing the rate of heat loss, raise the surface temperature of the Earth (body) until a new thermodynamic balance is achieved between incoming solar radiation (internal body heating) and outgoing thermal radiation (in the case of a blanket, including convection and non-radiative processes). This process works regardless of whether the atmosphere (blanket) is cooler than the surface (body). We are aware of the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, and we have determined that the conclusions of the paper are inconsistent with the well-supported literature regarding the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. For example, as a disproof of the greenhouse effect, the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner presents the example of a pot of water, noting that the bottom of the pot will be cooler if it is filled with water than if it is empty. Contrary to the assertion in the paper, the primary thermal effect of adding water to the pot is not a reduction in heat transfer, but rather an increase of thermal mass. We assert that a more appropriate example for the paper to have examined would have been the addition of a lid to a pot of water, which reduces the rate of heat loss, and leads to an increase of heating of the water compared to a case with no lid. The paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner is also inconsistent with the scientific literature with regards to the interpretation of radiative balance diagrams and the assertion that there is no “mean temperature” of the Earth, in contrast to the hundreds of peer-reviewed publications and many assessment reports which use both concepts.

This, of course, neglects the latent heat carried away from the pot and thus the heating element by evaporation of the water in the pot. Since it is well known that people who are physics obsessed are often forgetful, we postulate that the housewife forgets that she has put the pot on the range, and all the water boils away. At that point, when all the water has evaporated, measurements show that the heating element rises to a higher temperature than it was before the tea pot was placed on it.

And since I was up on the roof and did not see any follow up answer, from all the good scientists out there; about the Nasa, Moon tapes vs. the "degausser"... remember rabbit? This looked easy to understand:

http://www.degaussers.net/whydegauss.asp

Please tell us again, how these MOon Tapes, can look so Good? How hard is this short paper to understand? You did graduate from a High School, didn't you? Don't go calling Hollywood for the answer Eli, ok? Show us the graphics that should illustrate the affect of the effect:) Work that dark magic of yours...?

For the threadless, this is from the "When you are in a hole stop digging" from March...Mark said... "First it was NASA.." I hope he isn't referring to Capricorn One? I did have one sceptic cite the Challenger accident as evidence of NASA's fallibility. The depths of denial are approaching bottom.

1:59 PM Anonymous said... Hare you go rabbits... Think for a moment... Why go to Hollywood for FX? Are'nt the scientists from NASA smart enough to do this important work? The first story on this leads with: "The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday." they also say: "The good news is we found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed." Now they look better than ever says Holywood and Nasa. Have any of you rabbits ever degaussed a cassett, not much left of the original is there? All these good ideas from the 'big brains' was to save money...& SPACE. Would'nt you know? Dateline on this story is 7/16/2009. Check it out.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

The CRU threw out their hard copy weather reports to save SPACE, once they moved to their new building at EAU.

The CIA tapes over the Oswald meeting with the Russians in Mexico City back in 1962, to save money & SPACE, the agency just taped over the reels...

Now; why don't you wabbits, open your own eyes and ears and look around. Do you folks live in holes? I am starting to wonder...

A familiar mole (with doubtless equally familiar colleagues) rises once again to be whacked. Of interest he (Spencer) says it took JGR two years to approve the paper. All I can say is that the bullseye must be very large for it to have taken so long to paint it. Anyway, the claim seems to be that internal climate variability relating to clouds makes it impossible to estimate sensitivity.

Regarding the pot and the evaporating water: that is exactly how a rice boiler works. While there is water in the pot, the temperature can never go above 100 C. Once all water has either evaporated or been absorbed by the rice grains, the temperatur rises above 100 C and that is the signal for the boiler to switch off.

Here is a message from Roger Taguchi which may help to enlighten some of you QUOTE:

Re the balance between incoming short-wavelength incoming solar radiation (visible light) and outgoing long-wavelength IR (infrared), it seems to me that all the mathematical equations in the literature ASSUME radiative equilibrium. The difference is then the greenhouse effect. No one except Nicol (and me) seems aware that there are non-radiative mechanisms (i.e. collision between molecules) for energy transfer between molecules. Thus all the equations for radiative exchange miss the fundamental mechanism for the greenhouse effect: greenhouse gas molecules (CO2, H2O, methane, etc.) absorb some of the IR emitted by the solid and liquid surface of the Earth by jumping to an upper vibrational energy level (with vibrational quantum number v = 1) and transfer this excess vibrational energy (at equilibrium at 200-300 K, the molecules would almost all be in their ground vibrational states, with vibrational quantum number v = 0) BY COLLISION to air molecules (N2, O2, Ar) which CANNOT re-emit IR radiation (because they have zero changing electric dipole moments).

Thus BY COLLISION the energy gets exchanged with other air molecules, and the atmosphere gets hotter than in the absence of greenhouse gases. This fundamental mechanism has been obvious to me for over 4 decades (when I was a high school student around 1960, the encyclopedia "explanation" for the greenhouse effect did not totally make sense to me, since I could not see how changing visible light energy to IR would warm the atmosphere; studies in Physical Chemistry then allowed me to independently understand the greenhouse effect, and then further grad work on energy transfer during collision by excited molecules in Nobel laureate John Polanyi's group reinforced my understanding). Has increased specialization in academic education reduced general understanding of fundamental physics so much that no one else can see the nonsense in the "220 K blackbody radiation from the upper troposphere", supposedly the "explanation" for the greenhouse effect? UNQUOTE.

Here is a relevant response which Roger Taguchi made on Australian Senator Fielding’s “Is global warming man-made? Is global warming dangerous?” thread (Note 1). This should help to shed more light on this poorly understood topic QUOTE:

.. thank you for showing me a good explanation involving the importance of energy transfer on collision between excited CO2 molecules and surrounding air (N2, O2, Ar) molecules, in agreement with my own independently-arrived-at view. This should be emphasized in textbooks on climatology (which I admit to not having read, most of my information to date coming second- or third-hand from wikipedia and this website).

.. it seems to me that the accepted explanation of the greenhouse effect then goes on to say that IR emitted from the solid and liquid surface of the Earth is exchanged using CO2 molecules at 300 K or so (at the surface) to an ultimately-emitting layer in the upper troposphere at 220 K. This is where we differ about the mechanism. For instance, if the Earth had absolutely no CO2, including in the upper troposphere, would there be a 220 K blackbody-emitting layer? I say no, because N2, O2 and Ar do not have changing electric dipole moments, and therefore cannot emit IR radiation. But by the accepted explanation, with no CO2, there would be even less outgoing radiation, and therefore an even higher greenhouse effect (see any college textbook on physical chemistry for the derivation of Planck’s blackbody radiation formula, which would be applicable for an opaque = black surface, not a transparent atmosphere), a logical contradiction.

The accepted explanation is also disproven on inspection of the satellite spectrum looking down on Antarctica: the surface of Antarctica is at or below 200 K, and yet there is an observed emission at CO2 frequencies GREATER THAN the total blackbody surface emission, and this assumes even at zero net absorption by CO2! This is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (NET heat flow does not occur from a cold to a hot surface). Lamely explaining the emission over Antarctica as due to a “temperature inversion” without explaining how the molecules at altitude gained that energy is no explanation (or equivalent to saying that summer temperatures are higher than winter temperatures because the thermometer readings are higher in summer).

I have explained the origin of the CO2 emission measured by satellite over Antarctica in a longer article I can email on request to rtaguchi@sympatico.ca. The manuscript is in WordPerfect (Version X3), .. but in case your computer cannot decipher WordPerfect, I can email a scanned pdf file. Briefly, the CO2 emission seen over Antarctica (and even more so over the rest of the Earth) is caused by IR frequencies in incoming solar radiation which boost ground state molecules to much higher vibrational levels (e.g. to v=3 in bond-bending mode). These excited molecules can then emit longer wavelength IR photons, in particular the observed CO2 radiation at 670 wavenumbers, as they cascade down to the ground state one vibrational level at a time (e.g. from v =3 to v=2, then from v=2 to v=1, and then from v=1 to v=0). The incoming blackbody solar radiation in the upper atmosphere has enough energy at the relevant frequencies to explain the observed outgoing CO2 emission.

UNQUOTE.

NOTES:1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/795/P855/

Pete, the cascade will be collisional, not radiative. This is just another version of the energy staying locked in the vibrationally excited CO2 molecule. Depending on the time of year, it is also possible that the temperature of the atmosphere is warmer than the temperature of the surface.

Roger Taguchi, via Pete Ridley, said:“Briefly, the CO2 emission seen over Antarctica (and even more so over the rest of the Earth) is caused by IR frequencies in incoming solar radiation which boost ground state molecules to much higher vibrational levels (e.g. to v=3 in bond-bending mode). These excited molecules can then emit longer wavelength IR photons, in particular the observed CO2 radiation at 670 wavenumbers, as they cascade down to the ground state one vibrational level at a time (e.g. from v =3 to v=2, then from v=2 to v=1, and then from v=1 to v=0). The incoming blackbody solar radiation in the upper atmosphere has enough energy at the relevant frequencies to explain the observed outgoing CO2 emission.”

I agree. Based on the absorption figures, the 15um band is definitely being emitted by CO2 in the Stratosphere, and the most likely sources of energy are absorption of sunlight by CO2 and Ozone in the Stratosphere, which is almost completely thermally and radiatively isolated from the Troposphere by the deep and very cold Tropopause.

Collisional deactivation is really important near the Earth's surface,thus explaining the greenhouse effect. If the cascade is to be radiative,it must be at high altitudes where the pressure is so low that collisionsare infrequent. Presumably the NIMBUS satellite was at an altitude highenough that atmospheric pressure was negligible, so that frictional dragwas negligible. Therefore any emission below the satellite, but fromCO2 capable of absorbing incoming solar radiation (it doesn't have to bein a thin layer, it could be the integrated CO2 over a large altitude range),might explain the observed emission. I'm not going to state a precisevalue, but presumably it must be well above the troposphere.

More from RogerQUOTE:As I recall from 40 years ago, collisional deactivation of vibrational statesof diatomic molecules like HCl, HF, CO became experimentally negligiblecompared to radiation cascade at pressures of about 10^-3 Torr (1 Torr = 1 mm Hg,where 1 atm. = 760 mm Hg) to 10^-5 Torr. At 10^-5 Torr, rotationalstates, which require only a few (3-20 or so) collisions to become thermalized(fit a Boltzmann distribution characterized by a single temperature, notnecessarily the ambient temperature), could be observed in highlynon-Boltzmann distributions immediately after gas phase reaction.[In fact, this allowed for the possibility of population inversions, and soin 1960 or so, John Polanyi became the first to suggest the possibility ofchemical lasers. The Star Wars anti-missile defense was supposedly designedaround space platforms containing huge containers of H2 and F2 gases whichon reaction would form HF in high vibrational states involving population inversionswhich would lase to give off missile-killing IR radiation.] A pressure of 0.001 mb,approx. 10^-3 Torr, exists at an altitude of about 90 km (in the thermosphere),and so CO2 molecules around there would emit excess energy as IR rather thanbe collisionally deactivated vibrationally [rotational states would presumablystill be thermalized to a Boltzmann distribution characterized by a rotationaltemperature not necessarily equilibrated by collision to the ambient translationaltemperature]. This of course is way above the upper troposphere at 20 km,where atmospheric pressure is 50 mb, or 38,000 times greater than 10^-3 Torr,and so collisional deactivation is still important there. So the NIMBUS satelliteorbiting (at several hundred km altitude?) should be able to see emission fromradiation cascades from CO2 molecules excited by resonant frequencies in theincoming Solar blackbody radiation. I believe Rabbett's arguments show thatthe standard explanation of IR radiation from CO2 molecules at 220 K in a layerat an altitude of 20 km is wrong for yet another reason, among many.

Let's see. Hmm, 10-3 Torr, you're already into the thermosphere (nee ionosphere)where the concentration of O atoms exceeds that of O2 because of solar VUV radiation and ion and electron collisions. This, of course, is the region where local thermodynamic equilibrium breaks down and you get non thermal energy distributions, but it is also the region where molecules break down.

So Eli went and took a quick look at the SABER data. Looks like the emission from CO2 in the thermosphere is about five orders of magnitude down from that at the top of the troposphere, and remember the emission at the top of the troposphere is significantly decreased because of the low temperatures driving the collisional emission. In other words, quantitatively the emission from the thermosphere is nichts, nada, bupkis, zilch. From the sound of it radiative recombination of O+CO sounds to be as likely a mechanism as radiative cascade, but that is only a guess.

Eli (Josh?) here is another response from Roger (“why not always Roger” I ask?

QUOTE:Radiative recombination sounds good to me. My guess of 90 km (the thermosphere) came from the pressure of 0.001 mb (approx. 10-3 Torr) where I know experimentally IR emission from diatomic molecules like HCl, HF & CO does not show significant deactivation by collision. I'd be OK with a factor of 10 higher in pressure, meaning 80 km (mesopause).

Eli Rabbett's comment about collisional deactivation trumping radiative cascade really applies at 20 km, where the pressure is 50 mb. So his acceptance of collisional excitation to v=1 to explain outgoing IR radiation seems contradictory. Collisional excitation cannot explain activation to v=2 or v=3, the latter observable as upward Q-branch spikes in the NIMBUS spectra over the Sahara, the Mediterranean, and Guam.

These may be seen athttp://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16928&start=81 and http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2572

The spectra other than the one at Guam may also be seen athttp://climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=268 and clicking "posted it".UNQUOTE.

BTW, carrot eater (they’re supposed to help us see things more clearly, but that’s just an old wive’s tale) try Google.

OK, this not so anonymouse is now being confused by Roger. Roger talks about collisional excitation of vibrations with v=1, claims v=2and v=3 excitations, and cites observed changes in the Q branch as evidence. But the Q branch refers to rotational motions, not vibrational motions!

Marco suspects Roger Taguchi is talking bollocks, but for the moment keeps an open mind.

QUOTE;EliRabett repeats the error of equating the %transmission as a measure of temperature. .. Eli's not seeing the contradiction in both using collisional activation to produce vibrationally excited states that radiate, and denying any radiation due to overwhelming collisional deactivation before radiation can occur ..

Marco has no idea what a Q-branch in a vibration-rotation spectrum means, but he could look it up in Herzberg's standard reference on Molecular Spectroscopy.

Eli (Josh?), I’ll get confirmation from Roger, meanwhile, are these two possible sources (simulations?) of any use to you? -Fig. 10.1 of NASA presentation (Note 1) and the two graphs in the Wikipedia “Radiative forcing: Example calculations” article (Note 2).

NOTES:1) see http://map.nasa.gov/documents/CLARREO/7_07_presentations/Michelson%20Interferometer.pdf 2) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Eli, if you are interested I can send you a Word97 version of Roger’s paper “Net Feedback in Global Warming Calculations” (updated 3rd Dec. 2009) the abstract of which concludes QUOTE: the IPCC predictions for future global warming are too large by a factor of 3 UNQUOTE. I could E-mail to jhalpern@howard.edu if convenient..

No Eli SPECIFICALLY wants the source of that figure. That should be easy enough to provide. There are reasons. Failing that, an emission spectrum for the same region that extends to 2500 or even better 3000 cm-1.

Hi Joshua, Roger confirms that he is “prepared to accept the spectra as published in wikipedia or textbooks”. If you are able to demonstrate that those spectra a flawed and provide more reliable alternative sources then I’ll pass them on to Roger for consideration. Although you haven’t responded to my offer of a copy of Roger’s paper “Net Feedback in Global Warming Calculations” (updated 3rd Dec. 2009) I’ll E-mail one to you at jhalpern@howard.edu. Enjoy.

Roger Taguchi has sent the following comment relating to his paper “Net Feedback in Global Warming Calculations” (updated 3rd Dec. 2009) QUOTE:.. I came across this website which has similar conclusions to my report on "Net Feedbacks in Global Warming Calculations": http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I differ in that I accept that CO2 accounts for about 30%, not 4.2-8.4%, of the total greenhouse effect (with water vapour accounting for about 70%). However I agree with the discussion on "positive feedback", which I have shown to be essentially zero, when the historic temperature rise of about 0.7 C since about 1750 (or 1850) is taken into account. The "junkscience" discussion points out that if positive feedback were really important, then it should really show up when the Northern hemisphere warms up in the summer compared to the winter. It doesn't. Similarly, I point out that this positive feedback should show up during the daily warmup from nightto daytime. It doesn't; the daily rise and fall of about 1-2 C can be simply explained by the cooling off at night as energy is lost as IR to empty space, which just balances the net warming up during the daytime as visible light (mainly) is absorbed by land and sea, with an increased rate of loss as IR in the daytime as the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation emitted varies as T^4. UNQUOTE.

Have you any comments on this?

Eli, did you receive the copy of his paper that I E-mailed to you? If not I can re-send.

Hi Eli, you said in your comment of 22nd April @ 06.15 QUOTE: .. Tell Roger to put up or shut up. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's it. Eli is NOT asking for the raw data, the notes or what have you, but for the reference UNQUOTE. I thought that I had helped by pointing to some alternatives but you weren’t satisfied so I’ve tried even harder (it’s in my nature). I have now managed to track down the source of the three emissions spectra that Roger used (Note 1).

It wasn’t as easy as you might have thought - but just for you - these were originally presented in July 1971 on Page 14 of NASA report “Earth Albedo and Emitted Radiation” (Note 2). Is this the source that QUOTE: Eli SPECIFICALLY. . That should be easy enough to provide UNQUOTE? It should be a good enough reference to resolve your concern about QUOTE: .. where was it published, because there will be detail about the conditions under which the spectra were taken .. UNQUOTE?

You should now be able to get back with a further response.

NOTES:1) see http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16928&start=812) see http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710023628_1971023628.pdf

Eli, in the process of trying to find this reference I came across “A First Course In Atmospheric Radiation (2nd Ed.)” by Grant W. Petty (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/index.html). This includes a related set of spectra (Fig. 8.3, Pages 18 & 19) which I passed to Roger, who has responded with relevant comments which should be of interest to you QUOTE:

In their Fig. 8.3 (c) Tropical Western Pacific spectrum, there is a 298 K (25 C) general blackbody spectrum, from which certain resonant frequencies are subtracted (absorbed) by greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere. In particular the CO2 bond-bending frequency at 667 cm^-1 (15 microns wavelength). This is measured by the satellite outside the atmosphere, looking down at a 25 C solid and liquid Earth.

Fig. 8.3 (c) also shows a 210 K blackbody curve measured, I am assuming .. , either looking up from the ground, or, more probably, by the satellite looking down at a Thunderstorm anvil. From the satellite's orbit, a Thunderstorm anvil composed of liquid droplets (more likely ice crystals near the top) would act as a shield, so that the IR emission from the Earth's surface could not be seen. Instead, the much cooler 210 K (-63 C) is a measure of the top of the Thunderstorm anvil at altitude.

On top of this 210 K blackbody curve is superimposed another peak, with 2 spikes (the Q-branch spikes separated by about 20 cm^-1 originating from transitions from v=3 to v=2, and from the combined emissions from v=2 to v=1, and v=1 to v=0), which matches the emission seen with the 298 K blackbody spectrum. This shows that the emission containing the Q-branch spikes is definitely not 210 K blackbody. .. it .. is resonant emission from excited state CO2 molecules higher up in the atmosphere than the Thunderstorm anvil, and is therefore seen by the satellite to be the same in both spectra.

The source of energy for this CO2 emission is higher-energy IR light from the incoming Solar radiation .. absorbed by CO2 molecules into higher combination vibrations, which cascade down in energy as they emit longer-wavelength 15 micron photons each time the vibrational quantum number drops down by 1 unit for bond-bending.

Note that the two Q-branch spikes appear in the (a) Sahara Desert, (c) Tropical Western Pacific, and (d) Southern Iraq spectra as upward spikes in the middle of the downward absorption trough for CO2. In the spectrum (b) Antarctic Ice Sheet, the upward Q-branch spike (for v=2 to v=1 and v=1 to v=0) is really prominent, with the spike for v=3 to v=2 lost in the noise 20 wavenumbers (cm^-1) to the left.

Note that there is more noise for the (b) Antarctic Ice Sheet spectrum, as the background blackbody signal from the Earth's surface is only 180 K, whereas the other three spectra have a hotter 210-220 K blackbody emission background (and blackbody emission varies as the 4th power of the absolute temperature, by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law). The CO2 emission is also itself lower over Antarctica, because the incoming solar blackbody radiation that powers it is spread out over a greater area (which depends on the cosine of the latitude, e.g. near the Equator, cos 0 = 1, whereas in Antarctica even in summer, cos 75 = 0.26). All these features are present in the spectra referred to in my article "Net Feedback in Global Warming Calculations".

Note also that in these three spectra there is absolutely no evidence for a 220 K emitting layer from which the CO2 emission supposedly escapes into outer space (compare the 210 K emission from the Thunderstorm anvil, which is real). This hypothetical layer is the main feature in the accepted "explanation" for the greenhouse effect. This hypothetical layer not only does not show up in the published spectra, but is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and (more disturbingly) the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The CO2 emission seen at 15 microns has no IPCC explanation of origin in the Antarctica spectrum. Since the central frequencies are almost completely absorbed in the lower atmosphere, as shown by the "saturation" effect, there is no energy coming from the ground. Collisions to excite CO2 molecules would end up in net power loss to outer space and therefore a continuous drop in temperature unless there is an input of power. The only possible explanation is a power source from outside the Earth, obviously the Sun (except that the portion of the Solar spectrum at 15 microns is much too small to explain the magnitude of the emission by itself; hence, the need to invoke other parts of the blackbody radiation curve for the Sun to provide the excitation energy).

Finally, the literature interpretation of the peak heights as a measure of "temperature" or as a "temperature probe" is .. in error: for example, the height of the central Q-branch spike in the Antarctica spectrum is interpreted as a "higher temperature" in the emitting layer. This follows from the identification of the CO2 trough truncation in the other spectra as a measure of the "220 K temperature" of the blackbody emitting layer in the upper troposphere (at 20 km). Any .. familiar with the varying peaks and troughs in the IR spectrum of an organic molecule in a lab spectrometer would be astonished .. at the "interpretation" that each peak measures a different temperature (instead of varying absorption strengths) .. this .. interpretation has passed without correction in all the climate literature ..

.. this risible interpretation .. may have resulted from a total non-understanding of the term "inversion temperature": in atomic spectra obtained from the Sun, bright lines are seen when the intensity is greater than the background blackbody radiation from the Sun. Conversely, dark ("Fraunhofer") lines are seen when there is absorption so that atomic emission is less than the background blackbody radiation. For any particular line, the inversion temperature is the temperature of a blackbody source behind atomic source that would make the line apparently disappear (i.e. there would be no surplus emission, and no apparent absorption). This "inversion temperature" would be different for each atomic line, and is a measure of a hypothetical blackbody behind the atomic source, and not the actual temperature of the atomic source ..

UNQUOTE.

I have removed some of Roger’s text but hope that this all helps in obtaining a better understanding of those horrendously complicated global climate processes and drivers.

KoFi Button

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.